Would you include work related distraction via co-workers in the microbreaks category? I have found that breaking from deep concentration for 5-10 minutes in order to help my team members can set me back about 30 mins on a project. Now I schedule a time after my project should be complete in order to help them with theirs.
When you decide to change out the filter I recommend using cheap painters or kraft tape instead of duct tape. I found that painters tape removes easily and tends not to leave adhesive behind.
Hey, a conspiracy theory. Great start for a new account!
What you are misunderstanding: Companies and products are part of what's often called "the real world". As such, journalists are allowed to mention them in articles, because nothing in the real world cannot be the subject of journalism.
And in the same way that they sometimes offer positive opinions on politicians, or 200 year old books, or tomorrow's weather, it can happen that a story reflects positively on a product or company.
Accusing the NYT of corruption may seem like just a platitude to you, and spreading it as nothing of consequence. Because you're one of the smart people that see through all the propaganda that the mainstream media is brainwashing us with.
To a journalist it's kinda like accusing a physician of murder. It also gnaws at a rather important foundation of democracy. That's why you should come with some sort of rational for your theory.
As a lesser point: it would be rather stupid if the NYT could be bought by a bunch of startups. Because every single one of the people involved with these transactions would have the power to ruin the Times. It's absurd to believe that they would regularly engage in such practices and manage to keep it secret in the current political climate. It's also absurd that they would risk their existence for whatever meagre sums a few mentions in an article could be worth.
If the NYT is being honest, why did they mention the pen and paper and drop the subject? I think something fishy is going on here. I don't think that journalist owns a pen or paper. I mean, I think he owns neither of those two objects, not even a single sheet, and not even one of those crummy pens you get for free that has some other business's name on it.
Edit: Hold on, I stand corrected. This man has a notepad he keeps in his back pocket. I don't know how I missed that photo, but this reporter is legit. He has a notepad. He probably also has a pen because I see notes written on the notepad.
> What you are misunderstanding: being patronizing does not make you convincing.
At least they had arguments...
Being patronizing while making good arguments should be just as convincing as good arguments alone. Unless you're letting emotions cloud your judgement.
